black powder revolvers

bamaranger · October 29, 2009, 02:30 AM

I have always been curious about black powder BP /percussion revolvers.
Excluding the Ruger and genuine Colts re-release's, what importer, or are any of the import guns, worth it?

I would likely not shoot the thing to much, but I'm intrigued.

Also, for a fun gun, .36 or .44. cal? Thirty six seems logical, but the pistols are higher priced.

The 1860 Colt Army has always "talked" to me. Sleek, deadly looking, kind of a an antebellum Python.

eastbank · October 29, 2009, 05:41 AM

i have been shooting bp since my first 58 cal zuoave bought in the eary 60,s. i too love the 1860 army, but love my ruger old army too. you may find the 1858 remington new army more to you liking and it like the 1860 colt have a histroy in our civil war and was used by both sides. eastbank.

2damnold4this · October 29, 2009, 06:36 AM

I've got an 1851 navy replica in .36. I haven't shot it in some years but it was fun.

Doc Hoy · October 29, 2009, 07:49 AM

I like the feel of the boom of a .44 over a .36. They are not that much more expensive to shoot and they make more smoke and noise.

For a person who is not going to shoot very much, there is little to recommend the extra expense for a steel frame revolver. I happen to be partial to the appearance of a steel frame pistol but that is purely personal.

I could look at a million photos of 1860(1) Colts and when someone showed me the million and first photo, I would still say, "Dang....That is a pretty pistol!" In my collection it is the most populous model. I like to think of the design as "Deadly elegance".

Just a superb looking pistol. But again this is purely personal and others will cite some very valid reasons to go to a Remington design.

(I know that "Smokin Gun" is just waiting for me to hit the "submit" button so he can wade in.)

Doc Hoy · October 29, 2009, 08:01 AM

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=144908496

or

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=144542075

or

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=144727446

Noz · October 29, 2009, 08:50 AM

If you like the 1860's looks but want a 36 cal then look to the 1861. 1851 grip (smaller than an 1860) same rounded barrel but in 36. Pretty gun.

simonkenton · October 29, 2009, 09:50 AM

Yeah, the import guns are great!
I have a Uberti and a Pietta and like both of them. The Uberti is better-finished.

Go ahead and get the replica Colt 1860 Army, what a classic.

CraigC · October 29, 2009, 12:27 PM

Hard to beat a good 1860! I'm particularly enamored with the cartridge conversions on that model.

Smokin_Gun · October 29, 2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

(I know that "Smokin Gun" is just waiting for me to hit the "submit" button so he can wade in.)

Well Doc I guess I'm slippin' should been here sooner :O)
I will say that the 1860 Army is the sleekest and one of the most beautiful revolvers there is ... but for me they don't shine like the 1858 NMA or the 1861 Old Army Remington Revs.
I'm more taken to the .44 caliber than the .36's but I do like um both and they both do the job...

robhof · October 29, 2009, 01:59 PM

I've got the Ruger old Army, not peroid correct, but strongest of the B/p revolvers and a 1849 Pocket dragoon clone that's 32 cal and a real cheap shooter, only takes 12gr of powder and a tiney round ball or conical.

Hawg · October 29, 2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

The Uberti is better-finished.

Dunno bout that and the grips aren't orange.

bamaranger · October 30, 2009, 01:54 AM

Appreciate all the responses. Sorry about posting thread on wrong forum.

When I was a kid, my folks bought me a "gun book" that had a sketch of a colt 1860 w/ ivory grips, hanging on a nail on a board wall. Walked in a shop the other day and there was the book, new. bought it (don't ask). "The How and Why Wonder book of guns" And there was that picture, new and glossy. (NOT nude, c'mon guys) That's what started this thread.

Doc Hoy · October 30, 2009, 05:38 AM

You don't have to apologize for a thread that gets more than ten posts in the first twelve hours. I like reading about this stuff and I like talking about this stuff. Thanks for the post.

toolslinger · October 30, 2009, 07:02 AM

If you can, handle the guns before you buy. I like the design of the '58 Remington .You can change the cylinders easily and they detail strip into fewer parts. The frame is arguably stronger than a Colt. I can't even hardly stand to hold a Remmy though. I have big hands and the trigger guard just beats the crap out of my second finger. The 1860 Colt has a long sweep to the grip which leaves plenty o room for my mitts and my pinky don't hang off.

Gatofeo · November 1, 2009, 01:48 AM

The Colts are better balanced than the Remingtons. This balance makes the Colts point much better, for instinctive shooting.
The Remingtons are stronger, but the point is pretty much moot because both Colt and Remington are designed for black powder pressures.
The Remington's sights are better. The Colt's sights are just a notch in the hammer and a brass bead on the muzzle -- and that brass bead glows indistinctly in sunshine.
I have both Remington and Colt deisgns. For point shooting and pure fun, I like my Colt 1851 Navy 2nd generation.
For accuracy, I take my Uberti-made Remington Army in .44 caliber.
I like my Uberti-made 1860 Colt and its .44 caliber for point shooting with a big caliber.
For beginners, I suggest the .44 caliber, so you can buy .454 or .457 inch balls instead of the oft-recommended .451 inch balls. The larger balls create a better seal in the chamber, and offer a wider driving band for the rifling to grip, enhancing accuracy.
If .380 inch balls were as available as .454 and .457 inch balls, I'd probably recommend an 1851 Navy (for the history) or an 1861 Navy (for the sleekness and pointability).
But neither Speer nor Hornady, the two biggest manufacturers of lead balls, offer .36-caliber balls other than .375 inch. I find this .375 inch too small for a good seal or accuracy.
Speer and Hornady make balls of .451, 454 and .457 inch.
So, I'm inclined to suggest theh .44 caliber.
The Colts shoot high at 25 yards, and about dead-on at 80 to 100 yards.
So, if you plan to knock off tin cans in the local gravel pit at 15 to 25 yards, you'll need to aim well below them. This can be aggravating.
Most Remington replicas today are made with sights that are slightly higher than they need to be. This causes the ball to strike below the point of aim.
You can "adjust" the Colt sights a bit by filing a slightly deeper notch in the hammer nose.
If the Remington shoots low, merely file down the front sight a bit until the sight picture matches what you want to see at 25 yards or so.
But the sights should NOT be touched until you find the most accurate load!
Find an accurate load first, then modify the sights to fit that load if need be.
Or use the revolvers as-is, which is what most of the old-timers did.
Very few original Colts and Remingtons have come down to us with sights that were altered. The old-timers just learned where they shot at each range, and compensated. At close range, they aimed low with the Colts.
I believe that the original Remingtons pretty much shot dead-on at 50 yards. Comparing my Uberti-made Remington with an original a friend owned, we noticed that the Uberti had a much taller front sight.

If I were pressed to suggest the best cap and ball revolver for a beginner, it would be:

Uberti made
Remington Army
.44 caliber
stainless steel
Standard sights, not target adjustable

The proper balls for .44-caliber are more readily available. Uberti makes some of the best cap and ball revolvers found today. Ubertis also have slightly deeper rifling than Pietta, which helps them shrug off powder fouling longer and aids accuracy.
Stainless steel is more forgiving. Most newcomers to the sport put off cleaning their revolver and it rusts. Stainless steel will eventually rust, but it takes a while.
Standard sights? You're probably getting into this hobby because of the romantic history. So why do you need modern, adjustable sights? Enjoy the revolver as it was designed. Others may disagree, believing that adjustable sights are best, but I find them clunky-looking on a cap and ball.
The Ruger Old Army is probably the finest cap and ball revolver made. If you're not into history, it's a great revolver.
I shoot mine for history's sake, which is why none of my cap and balls have adjustable sights. Nor do I own a Ruger. It's a personal choice, not an indictment.

Whatever you get, don't ever forget that millions of lives have been snuffed out by cap and ball revolvers. They are not toys! They will kill as quickly as any modern gun, and are just as dangerous in irresponsible hands.
A lead ball at 1,000 feet per second is not to be taken lightly.

bamaranger · November 1, 2009, 02:32 AM

I've handled a buddy's 1858 Rem. It handled OK, but the look just didn't appeal to me. My buddy hates the look of the Colts, so its a personal thing. I have not handled a Colt of any model.

The advice on ball dia makes good sense I suppose I would have to shoot alot of .36 to make much savings against a .44

I've read two articles one by Hacker, very old, 1970's, and another by .......Sanow, more recently, about percussion revolvers. Hacker shot cylinders full of balls for time and accuracy./ Sanow shot into ballistic gelatin and made comparisons to modern loads. Very interesting.
The .44 ruled. But, all I'll wack with mine is cans. And I'll put fake ivory, or similar grips on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hacker claimed the Colts, open topped as they were, fouled and cap-jammed less than the topstrapped Rem's.

madcratebuilder · November 1, 2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Hacker claimed the Colts, open topped as they were, fouled and cap-jammed less than the topstrapped Rem's.

I'm sure there are many that well challenge that. My personal observation is open tops have more cap related issues and top strap models have more fouling issues, particularly around the cylinder pin and forcing cone area.

Either style can be tuned to be very reliable. The best approach is to own several of both Colts and Remingtons.

If you prefer the Colt style then I would get a 51 Navy steel frame revolver. Cabela's has their 51 on sale often and is well made.

Bigbadgun · November 1, 2009, 04:00 PM

I have several of both Colt models and Remingtons.
From .31 cal up to the .44s love everyone of my babies.
My newest is the 1860 what a sexy gun. But the same can be said about the 51 and also the remmies. Go find somewhere that has both and fondle as many as you can and make your choice like that.

Model-P · November 2, 2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

The Remington's sights are better. The Colt's sights are just a notch in the hammer and a brass bead on the muzzle -- and that brass bead glows indistinctly in sunshine.

This is very true. However, the Colt 1860 has 12% more sight radius than the Remington 1858 (10 3/8" vs. 9 1/4"). This is a very good thing in favor of the Colt, as long as the hammer has no loose side play.

Quote:

The Colts shoot high at 25 yards, and about dead-on at 80 to 100 yards.
So, if you plan to knock off tin cans in the local gravel pit at 15 to 25 yards, you'll need to aim well below them. This can be aggravating. You can "adjust" the Colt sights a bit by filing a slightly deeper notch in the hammer nose.

Yep. My Pietta 1860 shot about 9" high at 50 yards. However, filing the rear sight notch deeper will not change the point of impact. Since the top of the front sight is held even with the top of the rear sight (top of the hammer nose in this case), the top of the rear sight, not the notch itself, needs to be lowered. Doing the math told me I had to lower the top of the hammer by .052" to shoot to point of aim at 50 yards. Worked like a charm, and, yes, I did have to also deepen the notch again in order to have a notch left to see. Now it shoots dead-on at 50 yards, and 2-3" high at 25 yards. By the way, don't bother to listen to anyone who says the imported parts are still "soft". I ruined my long-time favorite file on this hammer!

What was a real eye-opener for me was to place the 1860 up-side-down, cocked, on a table so the hammer and front sight rested on the table. Looking at the axis of the bore in relation to the sight plane, you SWEAR the thing would shoot really low at any range. It was then that I really realized just how much the muzzle jumps before the bullet even leaves the muzzle! Check it out for yourself.

Quote:

Or use the revolvers as-is, which is what most of the old-timers did.
Very few original Colts and Remingtons have come down to us with sights that were altered. The old-timers just learned where they shot at each range, and compensated.

Sometimes I wonder if the originals really shot like the reproductions do. I tend to think that maybe the original manufacturers spent alot more effort in making sure each individual arm was properly regulated before leaving the factory. I don't really know this for sure, though.

Quote:

If I were pressed to suggest the best cap and ball revolver for a beginner, it would be:

Uberti made
Remington Army
.44 caliber
stainless steel
Standard sights, not target adjustable

Bingo! My very first gun. My brother helped pay for this as my grade school graduation present in 1978. Got it from EMF, I believe. I remember seeing the ads in all the gun magazines at the time. I think the cased set ran $180-200? even back then.

mykeal · November 2, 2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Since the top of the front sight is held even with the top of the rear sight (top of the hammer nose in this case), the top of the rear sight, not the notch itself, needs to be lowered.

If the need is to lower the rear sight,
why would one deliberately hold high on the rear sight?
Why wouldn't one simply hold the top of the front sight with the bottom of the notch,
and then file the notch deeper if the need to hold even lower was apparent?

Doc Hoy · November 2, 2009, 07:49 AM

We have come to accept the shooting properties of these pistols as part of cap and ball dogma. Ask anyone who has shot more than five rounds from most of the Colt revolver clones and they all say the same thing.

But that does not mean it is right. I have read that the reason that Colts shoot high at 25 yards is that they were designed by Colt to be accurate at 75 yards, implying a deliberate decision on the part of the Colt folks. I have never shot an original, nor have I read actual accounts of original Colt pointing characteristics, so I don't know, but it sure sounds like famous last words.

Colt designer: "I meant to do that."

We would all feel better if the Colts would consistently shoot where you point them.

But alas, they don't.

We shoot and shoot and shoot, to become more familair with the right bullet size, the right powder load, the right cap, even the right lubricant, Why would we not shoot even more to become familiar with the pointing qualities?

I have also never had the opportunity to examine slow motion videos of the firing of a Colt revolver in comparison with a Remington. I would like to compare the two videos (if they exist) by synchronizing the discharge sequence. I would then like to look at the position of the muzzle at the moment when the bullet leaves the muzzle. I wonder if the muzzle of the Colt is consistently higher than the muzzle of the Remington. I do acknowledge that nine to twelve inches at 25 yards would come from a very small, perhaps undetectable, difference. By trig it is .76 degrees. Darned hard to see.

And of course I could be on the wrong track. (Wouldn't be the first time.)

Model-P · November 2, 2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

If the need is to lower the rear sight,
why would one deliberately hold high on the rear sight?
Why wouldn't one simply hold the top of the front sight with the bottom of the notch,
and then file the notch deeper if the need to hold even lower was apparent?

Sure, I suppose one could do that, and it would work a little better than just holding under on the target. But it's kind of a backwards way to do it. When one speaks of adjusting sights to shoot to point of aim, he is usually referring to adjusting the sights to shoot to point of aim while using a proper sight picture. That means that the top of the front sight is held flush to the top of the rear sight. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Quote:

I have read that the reason that Colts shoot high at 25 yards is that they were designed by Colt to be accurate at 75 yards

I thought I had read 50 yards, but since I can't remember where I read it, you may be correct. 75 yards does seem like an odd number though.

arcticap · November 3, 2009, 12:10 AM

I don't think that it's an odd range considering the maximum powder charge, effective range and accuracy of the revolver. Like most military weapons, it was designed to be able to hit a man in the torso by aiming somewhere in the middle of his body and not as a precision target pistol to shoot paper targets with at modern shooting range distances.

kflach · November 3, 2009, 12:19 PM

To be honest, if I was watching a bunch of enemy soldiers charging me I'd rather be able to start shooting at them (with a reasonable confidence of hitting them) at 75 yards rather than a 50 yards.

Hardy · November 3, 2009, 09:28 PM

Doc,

I like the 1861 navy 36. It looks like the 1860 colt--but it is easier to load, a little lighter& amo costs less and w/22 to 25 grains of Jim Shockley--you realize why WB Hickock used 36 navy's.

Go back to my BP store ideas and check out that original pocket colt. I'm offering it to you guys-I mean y'all, at a great price. It is a collectible w all serial #'s matching and all parts authenic--and still works--but I wouldn't advise shootin it. It's a 750 to 950 gun. 670 will buy it now

Twin

October 29, 2009, 02:30 AM	#1
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,302	black powder revolvers I have always been curious about black powder BP /percussion revolvers. Excluding the Ruger and genuine Colts re-release's, what importer, or are any of the import guns, worth it? I would likely not shoot the thing to much, but I'm intrigued. Also, for a fun gun, .36 or .44. cal? Thirty six seems logical, but the pistols are higher priced. The 1860 Colt Army has always "talked" to me. Sleek, deadly looking, kind of a an antebellum Python.

October 29, 2009, 07:49 AM	#4
Doc Hoy Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Naples, Fl Posts: 5,440	As Ronald Reagan always said, "Well...." I like the feel of the boom of a .44 over a .36. They are not that much more expensive to shoot and they make more smoke and noise. For a person who is not going to shoot very much, there is little to recommend the extra expense for a steel frame revolver. I happen to be partial to the appearance of a steel frame pistol but that is purely personal. I could look at a million photos of 1860(1) Colts and when someone showed me the million and first photo, I would still say, "Dang....That is a pretty pistol!" In my collection it is the most populous model. I like to think of the design as "Deadly elegance". Just a superb looking pistol. But again this is purely personal and others will cite some very valid reasons to go to a Remington design. (I know that "Smokin Gun" is just waiting for me to hit the "submit" button so he can wade in.) __________________ Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath.

October 29, 2009, 08:01 AM	#5
Doc Hoy Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Naples, Fl Posts: 5,440	Here ya go! http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=144908496 or http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=144542075 or http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=144727446 __________________ Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath.

October 29, 2009, 01:59 PM	#10
robhof Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2007 Posts: 712	robhof I've got the Ruger old Army, not peroid correct, but strongest of the B/p revolvers and a 1849 Pocket dragoon clone that's 32 cal and a real cheap shooter, only takes 12gr of powder and a tiney round ball or conical.

October 30, 2009, 01:54 AM	#12
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,302	thanks guys Appreciate all the responses. Sorry about posting thread on wrong forum. When I was a kid, my folks bought me a "gun book" that had a sketch of a colt 1860 w/ ivory grips, hanging on a nail on a board wall. Walked in a shop the other day and there was the book, new. bought it (don't ask). "The How and Why Wonder book of guns" And there was that picture, new and glossy. (NOT nude, c'mon guys) That's what started this thread.

October 29, 2009, 05:41 AM	#2
eastbank Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2008 Location: pa. Posts: 2,450	i have been shooting bp since my first 58 cal zuoave bought in the eary 60,s. i too love the 1860 army, but love my ruger old army too. you may find the 1858 remington new army more to you liking and it like the 1860 colt have a histroy in our civil war and was used by both sides. eastbank.

October 29, 2009, 06:36 AM	#3
2damnold4this Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2009 Location: Athens, Georgia Posts: 2,526	I've got an 1851 navy replica in .36. I haven't shot it in some years but it was fun.

October 29, 2009, 08:50 AM	#6
Noz Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 643	If you like the 1860's looks but want a 36 cal then look to the 1861. 1851 grip (smaller than an 1860) same rounded barrel but in 36. Pretty gun.

October 29, 2009, 09:50 AM	#7
simonkenton Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2008 Posts: 891	Yeah, the import guns are great! I have a Uberti and a Pietta and like both of them. The Uberti is better-finished. Go ahead and get the replica Colt 1860 Army, what a classic.

October 29, 2009, 12:27 PM	#8
CraigC Junior member Join Date: November 28, 2001 Location: West Tennessee Posts: 4,300	Hard to beat a good 1860! I'm particularly enamored with the cartridge conversions on that model.

October 30, 2009, 05:38 AM	#13
Doc Hoy Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Naples, Fl Posts: 5,440	Don't feel bad, Bama You don't have to apologize for a thread that gets more than ten posts in the first twelve hours. I like reading about this stuff and I like talking about this stuff. Thanks for the post. __________________ Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath.

October 30, 2009, 07:02 AM	#14
toolslinger Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2009 Posts: 102	If you can, handle the guns before you buy. I like the design of the '58 Remington .You can change the cylinders easily and they detail strip into fewer parts. The frame is arguably stronger than a Colt. I can't even hardly stand to hold a Remmy though. I have big hands and the trigger guard just beats the crap out of my second finger. The 1860 Colt has a long sweep to the grip which leaves plenty o room for my mitts and my pinky don't hang off.

November 1, 2009, 01:48 AM	#15
Gatofeo Senior Member Join Date: October 1, 2004 Location: Remote Utah desert Posts: 224	The Colts are better balanced than the Remingtons. This balance makes the Colts point much better, for instinctive shooting. The Remingtons are stronger, but the point is pretty much moot because both Colt and Remington are designed for black powder pressures. The Remington's sights are better. The Colt's sights are just a notch in the hammer and a brass bead on the muzzle -- and that brass bead glows indistinctly in sunshine. I have both Remington and Colt deisgns. For point shooting and pure fun, I like my Colt 1851 Navy 2nd generation. For accuracy, I take my Uberti-made Remington Army in .44 caliber. I like my Uberti-made 1860 Colt and its .44 caliber for point shooting with a big caliber. For beginners, I suggest the .44 caliber, so you can buy .454 or .457 inch balls instead of the oft-recommended .451 inch balls. The larger balls create a better seal in the chamber, and offer a wider driving band for the rifling to grip, enhancing accuracy. If .380 inch balls were as available as .454 and .457 inch balls, I'd probably recommend an 1851 Navy (for the history) or an 1861 Navy (for the sleekness and pointability). But neither Speer nor Hornady, the two biggest manufacturers of lead balls, offer .36-caliber balls other than .375 inch. I find this .375 inch too small for a good seal or accuracy. Speer and Hornady make balls of .451, 454 and .457 inch. So, I'm inclined to suggest theh .44 caliber. The Colts shoot high at 25 yards, and about dead-on at 80 to 100 yards. So, if you plan to knock off tin cans in the local gravel pit at 15 to 25 yards, you'll need to aim well below them. This can be aggravating. Most Remington replicas today are made with sights that are slightly higher than they need to be. This causes the ball to strike below the point of aim. You can "adjust" the Colt sights a bit by filing a slightly deeper notch in the hammer nose. If the Remington shoots low, merely file down the front sight a bit until the sight picture matches what you want to see at 25 yards or so. But the sights should NOT be touched until you find the most accurate load! Find an accurate load first, then modify the sights to fit that load if need be. Or use the revolvers as-is, which is what most of the old-timers did. Very few original Colts and Remingtons have come down to us with sights that were altered. The old-timers just learned where they shot at each range, and compensated. At close range, they aimed low with the Colts. I believe that the original Remingtons pretty much shot dead-on at 50 yards. Comparing my Uberti-made Remington with an original a friend owned, we noticed that the Uberti had a much taller front sight. If I were pressed to suggest the best cap and ball revolver for a beginner, it would be: Uberti made Remington Army .44 caliber stainless steel Standard sights, not target adjustable The proper balls for .44-caliber are more readily available. Uberti makes some of the best cap and ball revolvers found today. Ubertis also have slightly deeper rifling than Pietta, which helps them shrug off powder fouling longer and aids accuracy. Stainless steel is more forgiving. Most newcomers to the sport put off cleaning their revolver and it rusts. Stainless steel will eventually rust, but it takes a while. Standard sights? You're probably getting into this hobby because of the romantic history. So why do you need modern, adjustable sights? Enjoy the revolver as it was designed. Others may disagree, believing that adjustable sights are best, but I find them clunky-looking on a cap and ball. The Ruger Old Army is probably the finest cap and ball revolver made. If you're not into history, it's a great revolver. I shoot mine for history's sake, which is why none of my cap and balls have adjustable sights. Nor do I own a Ruger. It's a personal choice, not an indictment. Whatever you get, don't ever forget that millions of lives have been snuffed out by cap and ball revolvers. They are not toys! They will kill as quickly as any modern gun, and are just as dangerous in irresponsible hands. A lead ball at 1,000 feet per second is not to be taken lightly. __________________ "And lo, did I see an ugly cat. Smoke. Brimstone. Holes in parchment. And this ugly cat was much amused." --- The Prophesies of Gatodamus (1503 - 1566)

November 1, 2009, 02:32 AM	#16
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,302	still here I've handled a buddy's 1858 Rem. It handled OK, but the look just didn't appeal to me. My buddy hates the look of the Colts, so its a personal thing. I have not handled a Colt of any model. The advice on ball dia makes good sense I suppose I would have to shoot alot of .36 to make much savings against a .44 I've read two articles one by Hacker, very old, 1970's, and another by .......Sanow, more recently, about percussion revolvers. Hacker shot cylinders full of balls for time and accuracy./ Sanow shot into ballistic gelatin and made comparisons to modern loads. Very interesting. The .44 ruled. But, all I'll wack with mine is cans. And I'll put fake ivory, or similar grips on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hacker claimed the Colts, open topped as they were, fouled and cap-jammed less than the topstrapped Rem's.

November 1, 2009, 04:00 PM	#18
Bigbadgun Junior Member Join Date: February 14, 2008 Posts: 9	gotta jump in I have several of both Colt models and Remingtons. From .31 cal up to the .44s love everyone of my babies. My newest is the 1860 what a sexy gun. But the same can be said about the 51 and also the remmies. Go find somewhere that has both and fondle as many as you can and make your choice like that. __________________ The website has changed but the leather has not. www.bbgcustomleather.com "Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle dixie." "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

November 2, 2009, 07:49 AM	#21
Doc Hoy Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Naples, Fl Posts: 5,440	Help me out on this one. We have come to accept the shooting properties of these pistols as part of cap and ball dogma. Ask anyone who has shot more than five rounds from most of the Colt revolver clones and they all say the same thing. But that does not mean it is right. I have read that the reason that Colts shoot high at 25 yards is that they were designed by Colt to be accurate at 75 yards, implying a deliberate decision on the part of the Colt folks. I have never shot an original, nor have I read actual accounts of original Colt pointing characteristics, so I don't know, but it sure sounds like famous last words. Colt designer: "I meant to do that." We would all feel better if the Colts would consistently shoot where you point them. But alas, they don't. We shoot and shoot and shoot, to become more familair with the right bullet size, the right powder load, the right cap, even the right lubricant, Why would we not shoot even more to become familiar with the pointing qualities? I have also never had the opportunity to examine slow motion videos of the firing of a Colt revolver in comparison with a Remington. I would like to compare the two videos (if they exist) by synchronizing the discharge sequence. I would then like to look at the position of the muzzle at the moment when the bullet leaves the muzzle. I wonder if the muzzle of the Colt is consistently higher than the muzzle of the Remington. I do acknowledge that nine to twelve inches at 25 yards would come from a very small, perhaps undetectable, difference. By trig it is .76 degrees. Darned hard to see. And of course I could be on the wrong track. (Wouldn't be the first time.) __________________ Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath.

November 3, 2009, 12:10 AM	#23
arcticap Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2005 Location: Central Connecticut Posts: 3,166	I don't think that it's an odd range considering the maximum powder charge, effective range and accuracy of the revolver. Like most military weapons, it was designed to be able to hit a man in the torso by aiming somewhere in the middle of his body and not as a precision target pistol to shoot paper targets with at modern shooting range distances. Last edited by arcticap; November 3, 2009 at 12:15 AM.

November 3, 2009, 12:19 PM	#24
kflach Registration in progress Join Date: July 15, 2009 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 99	To be honest, if I was watching a bunch of enemy soldiers charging me I'd rather be able to start shooting at them (with a reasonable confidence of hitting them) at 75 yards rather than a 50 yards.

November 3, 2009, 09:28 PM	#25
Hardy Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 709	Doc, I like the 1861 navy 36. It looks like the 1860 colt--but it is easier to load, a little lighter& amo costs less and w/22 to 25 grains of Jim Shockley--you realize why WB Hickock used 36 navy's. Go back to my BP store ideas and check out that original pocket colt. I'm offering it to you guys-I mean y'all, at a great price. It is a collectible w all serial #'s matching and all parts authenic--and still works--but I wouldn't advise shootin it. It's a 750 to 950 gun. 670 will buy it now Twin